The face of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was erased from a church fresco in Rome following a controversy over the artwork earlier this week. The affair began with painter Bruno Valentinetti’s restoration of a fresco at Rome’s Basilica of San Lorenzo in Lucina, which he first painted in the early 2000s. One of the figures in the restored fresco, it was noticed, bore an uncanny resemblance to Meloni. The likeness sparked outrage among opposition parties, prompting the Ministry of Culture and the Diocese of Rome to open an inquiry. According to a Wednesday report in La Repubblica, a daily paper, the painter said he had since painted over the face on Tuesday night. “That’s what the Vatican wanted,” Valentinetti told Italian media. “Yes, it is the prime minister’s face,” he confessed, “but based on the previous painting.” POLITICO reached out to the Vatican for comment but did not receive an answer ahead of publication. The culture ministry said in a statement on Wednesday that following the erasure of the face, Rome’s special superintendent had informed the rector of the basilica of the applicable rules. “Any restoration work requires an authorization request to the Religious Buildings Fund of the Interior Ministry, which owns the property, as well as to the Vicariate and the Special Superintendency of Rome, accompanied by a sketch of the image,” the statement said. While Meloni had previously laughed off the issue, noting “I definitely don’t look like an angel,” it remained unclear on Wednesday how Italy’s right-wing leader felt about being so unceremoniously erased. POLITICO contacted Meloni’s office as well as the rector of the basilica for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

LONDON — Reza Pahlavi was in the United States as a student in 1979 when his father, the last shah of Iran, was toppled in a revolution. He has not set foot inside Iran since, though his monarchist supporters have never stopped believing that one day their “crown prince” will return.  As anti-regime demonstrations fill the streets of more than 100 towns and cities across the country of 90 million people, despite an internet blackout and an increasingly brutal crackdown, that day may just be nearing.   Pahlavi’s name is on the lips of many protesters, who chant that they want the “shah” back. Even his critics — and there are plenty who oppose a return of the monarchy — now concede that Pahlavi may prove to be the only figure with the profile required to oversee a transition.  The global implications of the end of the Islamic Republic and its replacement with a pro-Western democratic government would be profound, touching everything from the Gaza crisis to the wars in Ukraine and Yemen, to the oil market.  Over the course of three interviews in the past 12 months in London, Paris and online, Pahlavi told POLITICO how Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be overthrown. He set out the steps needed to end half a century of religious dictatorship and outlined his own proposal to lead a transition to secular democracy. Nothing is guaranteed, and even Pahlavi’s team cannot be sure that this current wave of protests will take down the regime, never mind bring him to power. But if it does, the following is an account of Pahlavi’s roadmap for revolution and his blueprint for a democratic future.  POPULAR UPRISING  Pahlavi argues that change needs to be driven from inside Iran, and in his interview with POLITICO last February he made it clear he wanted foreign powers to focus on supporting Iranians to move against their rulers rather than intervening militarily from the outside.  “People are already on the streets with no help. The economic situation is to a point where our currency devaluation, salaries can’t be paid, people can’t even afford a kilo of potatoes, never mind meat,” he said. “We need more and more sustained protests.” Over the past two weeks, the spiraling cost of living and economic mismanagement have indeed helped fuel the protest wave. The biggest rallies in years have filled the streets, despite attempts by the authorities to intimidate opponents through violence and by cutting off communications. Pahlavi has sought to encourage foreign financial support for workers who will disrupt the state by going on strike. He also called for more Starlink internet terminals to be shipped into Iran, in defiance of a ban, to make it harder for the regime to stop dissidents from communicating and coordinating their opposition. Amid the latest internet shutdowns, Starlink has provided the opposition movements with a vital lifeline. As the protests gathered pace last week, Pahlavi stepped up his own stream of social media posts and videos, which gain many millions of views, encouraging people onto the streets. He started by calling for demonstrations to begin at 8 p.m. local time, then urged protesters to start earlier and occupy city centers for longer. His supporters say these appeals are helping steer the protest movement. Reza Pahlavi argues that change needs to be driven from inside Iran. | Salvatore Di Nolfi/EPA The security forces have brutally crushed many of these gatherings. The Norway-based Iranian Human Rights group puts the number of dead at 648, while estimating that more than 10,000 people have been arrested. It’s almost impossible to know how widely Pahlavi’s message is permeating nationwide, but footage inside Iran suggests the exiled prince’s words are gaining some traction with demonstrators, with increasing images of the pre-revolutionary Lion and Sun flag appearing at protests, and crowds chanting “javid shah” — the eternal shah. DEFECTORS Understandably, given his family history, Pahlavi has made a study of revolutions and draws on the collapse of the Soviet Union to understand how the Islamic Republic can be overthrown. In Romania and Czechoslovakia, he said, what was required to end Communism was ultimately “maximum defections” among people inside the ruling elites, military and security services who did not want to “go down with the sinking ship.”  “I don’t think there will ever be a successful civil disobedience movement without the tacit collaboration or non-intervention of the military,” he said during an interview last February.  There are multiple layers to Iran’s machinery of repression, including the hated Basij militia, but the most powerful and feared part of its security apparatus is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Pahlavi argued that top IRGC commanders who are “lining their pockets” — and would remain loyal to Khamenei — did not represent the bulk of the organization’s operatives, many of whom “can’t pay rent and have to take a second job at the end of their shift.”  “They’re ultimately at some point contemplating their children are in the streets protesting … and resisting the regime. And it’s their children they’re called on to shoot. How long is that tenable?” Pahlavi’s offer to those defecting is that they will be granted an amnesty once the regime has fallen. He argues that most of the people currently working in the government and military will need to remain in their roles to provide stability once Khamenei has been thrown out, in order to avoid hollowing out the administration and creating a vacuum — as happened after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.  Only the hardline officials at the top of the regime in Tehran should expect to face punishment.  In June, Pahlavi announced he and his team were setting up a secure portal for defectors to register their support for overthrowing the regime, offering an amnesty to those who sign up and help support a popular uprising. By July, he told POLITICO, 50,000 apparent regime defectors had used the system.  His team are now wary of making claims regarding the total number of defectors, beyond saying “tens of thousands” have registered. These have to be verified, and any regime trolls or spies rooted out. But Pahlavi’s allies say a large number of new defectors made contact via the portal as the protests gathered pace in recent days.  REGIME CHANGE In his conversations with POLITICO last year, Pahlavi insisted he didn’t want the United States or Israel to get involved directly and drive out the supreme leader and his lieutenants. He always said the regime would be destroyed by a combination of fracturing from within and pressure from popular unrest.  He’s also been critical of the reluctance of European governments to challenge the regime and of their preference to continue diplomatic efforts, which he has described as appeasement. European powers, especially France, Germany and the U.K., have historically had a significant role in managing the West’s relations with Iran, notably in designing the 2015 nuclear deal that sought to limit Tehran’s uranium enrichment program.  But Pahlavi’s allies want more support and vocal condemnation from Europe. U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal in his first term and wasted little time on diplomacy in his second. He ordered American military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities last year, as part of Israel’s 12-day war, action that many analysts and Pahlavi’s team agree leaves the clerical elite and its vast security apparatus weaker than ever.  U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal in his first term and wasted little time on diplomacy in his second. | Pool photo by Bonnie Cash via EPA Pahlavi remains in close contact with members of the Trump administration, as well as other governments including in Germany, France and the U.K. He has met U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio several times and said he regards him as “the most astute and understanding” holder of that office when it comes to Iran since the 1979 revolution.  In recent days Trump has escalated his threats to intervene, including potentially through more military action if Iran’s rulers continue their crackdown and kill large numbers of protesters.  On the weekend Pahlavi urged Trump to follow through. “Mr President,” he posted on X Sunday. “Your words of solidarity have given Iranians the strength to fight for freedom,” he said. “Help them liberate themselves and Make Iran Great Again!” THE CARETAKER KING  In June Pahlavi announced he was ready to replace Khamenei’s administration to lead the transition from authoritarianism to democracy.   “Once the regime collapses, we have to have a transitional government as quickly as possible,” he told POLITICO last year. He proposed that a constitutional conference should be held among Iranian representatives to devise a new settlement, to be ratified by the people in a referendum.  The day after that referendum is held, he told POLITICO in February, “that’s the end of my mission in life.”  Asked if he wanted to see a monarchy restored, he said in June: “Democratic options should be on the table. I’m not going to be the one to decide that. My role however is to make sure that no voice is left behind. That all opinions should have the chance to argue their case — it doesn’t matter if they are republicans or monarchists, it doesn’t matter if they’re on the left of center or the right.”  One option he hasn’t apparently excluded might be to restore a permanent monarchy, with a democratically elected government serving in his name.  Pahlavi says he has three clear principles for establishing a new democracy: protecting Iran’s territorial integrity; a secular democratic system that separates religion from the government; and “every principle of human rights incorporated into our laws.” He confirmed to POLITICO that this would include equality and protection against discrimination for all citizens, regardless of their sexual or religious orientation.  COME-BACK CAPITALISM  Over the past year, Pahlavi has been touring Western capitals meeting politicians as well as senior business figures and investors from the world of banking and finance. Iran is a major OPEC oil producer and has the second biggest reserves of natural gas in the world, “which could supply Europe for a long time to come,” he said.  “Iran is the most untapped reserve for foreign investment,” Pahlavi said in February. “If Silicon Valley was to commit for a $100 billion investment, you could imagine what sort of impact that could have. The sky is the limit.”  What he wants to bring about, he says, is a “democratic culture” — even more than any specific laws that stipulate forms of democratic government. He pointed to Iran’s past under the Pahlavi monarchy, saying his grandfather remains a respected figure as a modernizer.  “If it becomes an issue of the family, my grandfather today is the most revered political figure in the architect of modern Iran,” he said in February. “Every chant of the streets of ‘god bless his soul.’ These are the actual slogans people chant on the street as they enter or exit a soccer stadium. Why? Because the intent was patriotic, helping Iran come out of the dark ages. There was no aspect of secular modern institutions from a postal system to a modern army to education which was in the hands of the clerics.”   Pahlavi’s father, the shah, brought in an era of industrialization and economic improvement alongside greater freedom for women, he said. “This is where the Gen Z of Iran is,” he said. “Regardless of whether I play a direct role or not, Iranians are coming out of the tunnel.”  Conversely, many Iranians still associate his father’s regime with out-of-touch elites and the notorious Savak secret police, whose brutality helped fuel the 1979 revolution. NOT SO FAST  Nobody can be sure what happens next in Iran. It may still come down to Trump and perhaps Israel.  Anti-regime demonstrations fill the streets of more than 100 towns and cities across the country of 90 million people. | Neil Hall/EPA Plenty of experts don’t believe the regime is finished, though it is clearly weakened. Even if the protests do result in change, many say it seems more likely that the regime will use a mixture of fear tactics and adaptation to protect itself rather than collapse or be toppled completely.  While reports suggest young people have led the protests and appear to have grown in confidence, recent days have seen a more ferocious regime response, with accounts of hospitals being overwhelmed with shooting victims. The demonstrations could still be snuffed out by a regime with a capacity for violence.  The Iranian opposition remains hugely fragmented, with many leading activists in prison. The substantial diaspora has struggled to find a unity of voice, though Pahlavi tried last year to bring more people on board with his own movement.  Sanam Vakil, an Iran specialist at the Chatham House think tank in London, said Iran should do better than reviving a “failed” monarchy. She added she was unsure how wide Pahlavi’s support really was inside the country. Independent, reliable polling is hard to find and memories of the darker side of the shah’s era run deep. But the exiled prince’s advantage now may be that there is no better option to oversee the collapse of the clerics and map out what comes next. “Pahlavi has name recognition and there is no other clear individual to turn to,” Vakil said. “People are willing to listen to his comments calling on them to go out in the streets.”

The first American pope is on a collision course with U.S. President Donald Trump. The latest fault line between the Vatican and the White House emerged on Sunday. Shortly after Trump suggested his administration could “run” Venezuela, the Chicago-born Pope Leo XIV appeared at the Angelus window overlooking St. Peter’s Square to deliver an address calling for the safeguarding of the “country’s sovereignty.” For MAGA-aligned conservatives, this is now part of an unwelcome pattern. While Leo is less combative in tone toward Trump than his predecessor Francis, his priorities are rekindling familiar battles in the culture war with the U.S. administration on topics such as immigration and deportations, LGBTQ+ rights and climate change. As the leader of a global community of 1.4 billion Catholics, Leo has a rare position of influence to challenge Trump’s policies, and the U.S. president has to tread with uncustomary caution in confronting him. Trump traditionally relishes blasting his critics with invective but has been unusually restrained in response to Leo’s criticism, in part because he counts a large number of Catholics among his core electorate. “[Leo] is not looking for a fight like Francis, who sometimes enjoyed a fight,” said Chris White, author of “Pope Leo XIV: Inside the Conclave and the Dawn of a New Papacy.” “But while different in style, he is clearly a continuation of Francis in substance. Initially there was a wait-and-see approach, but for many MAGA Catholics, Leo challenges core beliefs.” In recent months, migration has become the main combat zone between the liberal pope and U.S. conservatives. Leo called on his senior clergy to speak out on the need to protect vulnerable migrants, and U.S. bishops denounced the “dehumanizing rhetoric and violence” leveled at people targeted by Trump’s deportation policies. Leo later went public with an appeal that migrants in the U.S. be treated “humanely” and “with dignity.” Leo’s support emboldened Florida bishops to call for a Christmas reprieve from Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. “Don’t be the Grinch that stole Christmas,” said Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami. As if evidence were needed of America’s polarization on this topic, however, the Department of Homeland Security described their arrests as a “Christmas gift to Americans.” Leo also conspicuously removed Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Trump’s preferred candidate for pope and a favorite on the conservative Fox News channel, from a key post as archbishop of New York, replacing him with a bishop known for pro-migrant views. This cuts to the heart of the moral dilemma for a divided U.S. Catholic community. For Trump, Catholics are hardly a sideshow as they constitute 22 percent of his electorate, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center. While the pope appeals to liberal causes, however, many MAGA Catholics take a far stricter line on topics such as migration, sexuality and climate change. To his critics from the conservative Catholic MAGA camp, such as Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon, the pope is anathema. U.S.-born Pope Leo XIV appeared at the Angelus window overlooking St. Peter’s Square to deliver an address calling for the safeguarding of Venezuela’s “sovereignty.” | Stefano Costantino/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Last year the pope blessed a chunk of ice from Greenland and criticized political leaders who ignore climate change. He said supporters of the death penalty could not credibly claim to be pro-life, and argued that Christians and Muslims could be friends. He has also signaled a more tolerant posture toward LGBTQ+ Catholics, permitting an LGBTQ+ pilgrimage to St Peter’s Basilica. Small wonder, then, that Trump confidante and conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer branded Leo the “woke Marxist pope.” Trump-aligned Catholic conservatives have denounced him as “secularist,” “globalist” and even “apostate.” Far-right pundit Jack Posobiec has called him “anti-Trump.” “Some popes are a blessing. Some popes are a penance,” Posobiec wrote on X. PONTIFF FROM CHICAGO There were early hopes that Leo might build bridges with U.S. hardliners. He’s an American, after all: He wears an Apple watch and follows baseball, and American Catholics can hardly dismiss him as as foreign. The Argentine Francis, by contrast, was often portrayed by critics as anti-American and shaped by the politics of poorer nations. Leo can’t be waved away so easily. Early in his papacy, Leo also showed signs he was keen to steady the church after years of internal conflict, and threw some bones to conservatives such as allowing a Latin Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica and wearing more ornate papal vestments. But the traditionalists were not reassured. Benjamin Harnwell, the Vatican correspondent for the MAGA-aligned War Room podcast, said conservatives were immediately skeptical of Leo. “From day one, we have been telling our base to be wary: Do not be deceived,” he said. Leo, Harnwell added, is “fully signed up to Francis’ agenda … but [is] more strategic and intelligent.” After the conclave that appointed Leo, former Trump strategist Bannon told POLITICO that Leo’s election was “the worst choice for MAGA Catholics” and “an anti-Trump vote by the globalists of the Curia.” Trump had a long-running feud with Francis, who condemned the U.S. president’s border wall and criticized his migration policies. Francis appeared to enjoy that sparring, but Leo is a very different character. More retiring by nature, he shies away from confrontation. But his resolve in defending what he sees as non-negotiable moral principles, particularly the protection of the weak, is increasingly colliding with the core assumptions of Trumpism. Trump loomed large during the conclave, with an AI-generated video depicting himself as pope. The gesture was seen by some Vatican insiders as a “mafia-style” warning to elect someone who would not criticize him, Vatican-watcher Elisabetta Piqué wrote in a new book “The Election of Pope Leo XIV: The Last Surprise of Pope Francis.” NOT PERSONAL Leo was not chosen expressly as an anti-Trump figure, according to a Vatican official. Rather, his nationality was likely seen by some cardinals as “reassuring,” suggesting he would be accountable and transparent in governance and finances. But while Leo does not seem to be actively seeking a confrontation with Trump, the world views of the two men seem incompatible. “He will avoid personalizing,” said the same Vatican official. “He will state church teaching, not in reaction to Trump, but as things he would say anyway.” Despite the attacks on Leo from his allies, Trump himself has also appeared wary of a direct showdown. When asked about the pope in a POLITICO interview, Trump was more keen to discuss meeting the pontiff’s brother in Florida, whom he described as “serious MAGA.” When pressed on whether he would meet the pope himself, he finally replied: “Sure, I will. Why not?” The potential for conflict will come into sharper focus as Leo hosts a summit called an extraordinary consistory this week, the first of its kind since 2014, which is expected to provide a blueprint for the future direction of the church. His first publication on social issues, such as inequality and migration, is also expected in the next few months. “He will use [the summit] to talk about what he sees as the future,” said a diplomat posted to the Vatican. “It will give his collaborators a sense of where he is going. He could use it as a sounding board, or ask them to suggest solutions.” It’s safe to assume Leo won’t be unveiling a MAGA-aligned agenda. The ultimate balance of power may also favor the pope. Trump must contend with elections and political clocks; Leo, elected for life, does not. At 70, and as a tennis player in good health, Leo appears positioned to shape Catholic politics well after Trump’s moment has passed. “He is not in a hurry,” the Vatican official said. “Time is on his side.”

Well, it’s (almost) over.  2025 was a monster year of news for Europe, but a couple stories in particular shook the continent — and piqued our readers’ interest. The first was a new and hostile U.S. administration, led by Donald Trump, which dramatically upended the transatlantic relationship (and saw him named POLITICO’s most influential person in Europe).  And the second was the war in Ukraine, which dragged into its fourth, bloody year and — together with Trump’s return to the White House — forced Europe’s leaders to make hard choices about the EU’s security, agency and destiny.   The collision of the two, a paradigm-shattering American president, and the grim reality on Ukraine’s battlefield dominated the year’s news. And POLITICO was there for every consequential speech, summit, and Oval Office spat.  Without further ado, here are our 20 most-read stories of 2025.   20. Europe thinks the unthinkable: Retaliating against Russia As the Kremlin launched a wave of hybrid attacks against EU member countries, from menacing fighter jet incursions to mysterious drone sightings, POLITICO asked: What would it take for Europe to finally hit back? Read the story 19. North Korean troops are far from ‘cannon fodder,’ Ukrainian soldiers say Pyongyang’s entry into the war in Ukraine on the Kremlin side was one of the more surprising stories of 2024. As the fighting continued this year, North Korean infantry proved to be highly skilled combatants, not just expendable pawns, according to Kyiv. Read the story 18. Canada’s conservative leader Pierre Poilievre loses his own seat in election collapse Canada’s election in the spring saw the landslide victory of now-Prime Minister Mark Carney and the spectacular fall of Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who was unable to hang onto his own seat. Read the story 17. Trump demands $500B in rare earths from Ukraine for continued support The transactional American president turned his sights on Ukraine’s rare earths, the critical elements and minerals vital to manufacturing modern technologies, asking Kyiv to cough up its natural resources in return for Washington’s help fending off Russia’s invasion … Read the story 16. Ukraine balks at signing Trump deal to hand over its mineral wealth … But that didn’t fly with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who refused to sign an agreement drafted by Washington to hand over half of his country’s rare earth minerals to American companies. Read the story 15. ‘Free world needs a new leader’: Europe defends Zelenskyy after Trump attack Trump and Vice President JD Vance’s acrimonious Oval Office showdown with Zelenskyy horrified European leaders and saw the EU stand up to Washington in a major turning point for transatlantic relations. Read story Vice President JD Vance joins as U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office at the White House on August 18, 2025. | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images 14. Trump blaming Ukraine for Putin’s war leaves Europe reeling The American leader’s insistence that Ukraine was responsible for its own invasion and parroting of Kremlin talking points didn’t exactly sit well with European governments, with one spokesperson calling his remarks “often incomprehensible.” Read the story 13. Russia to Trump: Back off Ukraine’s rare earths Trump’s efforts to ink an economic deal with Ukraine rang alarm bells in Moscow and triggered a response from the Kremlin’s chief spokesperson. Read the story 12. EU offers Trump removal of all industrial tariffs Trump’s punishing tariffs roiled the global economy, and in a bid to nab itself a better deal, the EU offered to scrap its tariffs on industrial products such as cars and chemicals if Washington did the same. Read the story 11. Macron calls emergency European summit on Trump, Polish minister says French President Emmanuel Macron, who did not exactly have the best year, led the European charge to respond to Trump’s disruption with a crisis meeting in Paris. Read the story 10. Huge blackouts cripple power supply in Spain and Portugal A massive outage in Spain and Portugal brought both countries to a standstill, affecting everything from public transport and traffic lights to hospitals and nuclear power plants. Read the story 9. Trump and Putin stun Europe with peace plan for Ukraine Just weeks after taking office, Trump confirmed Europeans’ worst fears when he called Russian President Vladimir Putin — who had previously been in the diplomatic freezer — and sought to broker an end to the war in Ukraine with the Kremlin, sidelining Kyiv and Brussels. Read the story 8. JD Vance attacks Europe over migration, free speech In a stunning tirade that set the tone for the Trump administration’s scathing stance on Europe this year, the American vice president ripped into the EU over everything from freedom of speech to migration policy. Read the story 7. JD Vance sparks British fury as he mocks Ukraine peacekeeping plan As the coalition of the willing took shape, with EU member countries and the U.K. devising a plan to potentially put boots on the ground in Ukraine, Vance poured scorn on the idea — and triggered backlash from London. Read the story 6. EU offers its own ‘win-win’ minerals deal to Ukraine Just as Trump was close to inking an economic deal with Ukraine to dig up Kyiv’s much-coveted natural resources, the EU swooped in with a rival proposition. Read the story 5. EU slams the door on US in colossal defense plan 2025 saw the EU race to arm itself with an ambitious €800 billion defense spending scheme— but Washington, which partly triggered Europe’s scramble to stand on its own two feet by denigrating Europe and cutting off aid to Ukraine, was shut out of the plan. Read the story 4. Top Trump allies hold secret talks with Zelenskyy’s Ukrainian opponents Weeks after Trump’s angry spray at Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, the U.S. president’s allies held secret discussions with some of the Ukrainian leader’s top domestic opponents. Read the story 3. ‘Parkinson’s is a man-made disease’ One of the most sobering stories of 2025 was the explosion in cases of Parkinson’s disease, which have more than doubled globally over the past 20 years and are expected to do so again in the next 20. A neurologist who leads a globally recognized clinic and research team told POLITICO the reason could be our exposure to chemicals. Read the story Photo-illustration by Laura Scott for POLITICO 2. EU to Trump on tariffs: Go ahead, make our day. As Trump prepared to unleash devastating tariffs on Europe, the EU locked and loaded its so-called “trade bazooka,” in a standoff that put Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry to shame. Read the story 1. Pope Francis, sensing he is close to death, moves to protect his legacy In the end, it was political machinations in the Vatican, not the U.S. or Ukraine, which most fascinated POLITICO’s readers. Facing the prospect of his death (which, when it happened in April following a stroke, triggered an outpouring of global grief), Pope Francis took steps to cement his reformist agenda and ensure his successor would follow in his footsteps. Read the story

ROME — Christmas is becoming a new front line in Europe’s culture wars. Far-right parties are claiming the festive season as their own, recasting Christmas as a marker of Christian civilization that is under threat and positioning themselves as its last line of defense against a supposedly hostile, secular left. The trope echoes a familiar refrain across the Atlantic that was first propagated by Fox News, where hosts have inveighed against a purported “War on Christmas” for years. U.S. President Donald Trump claims to have “brought back” the phrase “Merry Christmas” in the United States, framing it as defiance against political correctness. Now, European far-right parties more usually focused on immigration or law-and-order concerns have adopted similar language, recasting Christmas as the latest battleground in a broader struggle over culture. In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has made the defense of Christmas traditions central to her political identity. She has repeatedly framed the holiday as part of the nation’s endangered heritage, railing against what she calls “ideological” attempts to dilute it. “How can my culture offend you?” Meloni has asked in the past, defending nativity scenes in public spaces. She has argued that children should learn the values of the Nativity — rather than just associating Christmas with food and presents — and rejected the idea that long-standing traditions should be altered. This year, Meloni said she was abstaining from alcohol until Christmas, portraying herself as a practitioner of spirituality and tradition.   France’s National Rally and Spain’s Vox have similarly opposed secularist or “woke” efforts to replace religious imagery with neutral seasonal language, and advocated for nativity scenes in town halls. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has warned that Christmas markets are losing their “German character,” amplifying disinformation about Muslim traditions edging out Christian ones. CHRISTMAS SPECTACLE But Meloni’s party, Brothers of Italy, has turned the message into spectacle. Each December it hosts a Christmas-themed political festival — complete with Santa, ice-skating, and a towering Christmas tree lit in the colors of the Italian tricolor. Once held quietly in late summer, the event, named Atreyu — after a character in the fantasy film The NeverEnding Story — has since moved to the prestigious Castel Sant’Angelo, drawing families, tourists and the politically curious. Brothers of Italy said on their Whatsapp Channel that the festival had been “a success without precedent. Record numbers, real participation and a community that grows from year to year, demonstrating how it has become strong, like Italy.” Daniel, a 26-year-old tourist from Mallorca, who declined to give his last name because he did not want to be associated with a far right political event, said he and a friend wandered in after spotting the lights and music. “Then we realized it was about politics,” he said, laughing. CULTURAL CHRISTIANITY For party figures, the symbolism is explicit. “For us, traditions represent our roots, who we are, who we have been, and the history that made us what we are today,” said Marta Schifone, a Brothers of Italy MP. “Those roots must be celebrated and absolutely defended.” That message resonates with younger supporters too. Alessandro Meriggi, a student and leader in Azione Universitaria, the party’s youth wing, said Italy is founded on specific values that newcomers should respect. “In a country like Italy, you can’t ask schools to remove the crucifix,” he said. “It represents our values.” Religion, however, often feels almost beside the point. Many of the politicians leading these campaigns are not especially devout, and only a minority of their voters are practicing Christians. What matters is Christianity as culture, a civilizational shorthand that draws a boundary between “us” and “them.” U.S. President Donald Trump claims to have “brought back” the phrase “Merry Christmas” in the United States. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images “In the 1980s and 1990s, the radical right largely kept its distance from the church,” said Daniele Albertazzi, a professor at the University of Surrey who researches populism. “That changed between 2010–15, following Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe, which were framed as a clash of civilizations. Christianity became a cultural marker, a way to portray themselves as defenders of traditional family, tradition and identity.” Hosting a Christmas festival is a “very intelligent” move by Meloni’s party, he said. “They have tried to reverse the stigma of their past [on the far right] by becoming a broad-church modern conservative party, and this is part of the repackaging.” That strategy benefits from the left’s discomfort with religion in public life. Progressive parties and institutions, including the EU, have tried to emphasize inclusivity by using neutral phrases like “holiday season,” which for the far right amounts to cultural self-loathing. In Italy this year, the League and Brothers of Italy have attacked several schools that removed religious references from Christmas songs. In Genoa, right-wing parties accused the city’s left-wing mayor of delivering a “slap in the face to tradition” after she chose not to display a nativity scene in her offices. “We’re not embarrassed to say ‘Merry Christmas,’” said Lucio Malan, a Brothers of Italy senator, at Meloni’s festival. “I have always promoted religious freedom and know not everyone is Christian. But Christmas is the holiday people care about most. Let’s not forget its origins.” The irony, critics note, is that many Christmas traditions are relatively modern, shaped as much by commerce as by religion. Yet Christmas remains politically potent precisely because it is emotive, tied to family rituals, childhood memories and local identity. For Meloni’s government, taking ownership of Christmas fits a broader project to reclaim control over cultural institutions from public broadcasting to museums and opera, after what it sees as decades of left-wing dominance. The narrative of the far right as the defenders of Christmas presents a challenge for mainstream parties who have struggled to find a compelling counter-argument to convincingly defend secularism. And nowhere is that clearer than at the Brothers of Italy’s Christmas festival itself. As dusk falls over Castel Sant’Angelo, families skate to a soundtrack of Christmas pop, children pose for photos with Santa, and tourists wander in, drawn by lights and music rather than ideology. Politics is present, but softened, wrapped in nostalgia, tradition and seasonal cheer.

Pope Leo called on U.S. President Donald Trump not to “break apart” the transatlantic alliance after the Republican leader harshly criticized Europe in an interview with POLITICO.  Speaking to reporters after a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at Castel Gandolfo near Rome, the pontiff said Trump’s recent statements — in which he derided European leaders as “weak” and the continent as “decaying” — were an attempt to destroy the U.S.-Europe relationship.  “The remarks that were made about Europe also in interviews recently I think are trying to break apart what I think needs to be a very important alliance today and in the future,” Pope Leo said.    Trump slammed Europe as poorly governed and failing to regulate migration in an interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns that aired Tuesday in a special episode of The Conversation podcast.   “I think they’re weak,” Trump said, referring to the continent’s presidents and prime ministers, adding, “I think they don’t know what to do. Europe doesn’t know what to do.”  Pope Leo added the Trump administration’s peace plan for Ukraine “unfortunately” marks “a huge change in what was for many, many years a true alliance between Europe and the United States.”  Trump’s proposal to end the war, which sidelined Brussels and included several major concessions to Russia, including ceding vast swathes of Ukrainian territory and capping the size of its military, drew alarm from Kyiv and its European allies and led to frenzied negotiations in Geneva to come up with an alternative framework.  “It’s a program that President Trump and his advisers put together. He’s the president of the United States and he has a right to do that,” Pope Leo added.  But the Catholic leader said brokering peace talks “without including Europe” was “unrealistic.” “I really think that Europe’s role is very important … seeking a peace agreement without including Europe in the conversations, it’s not realistic,” he said. “The war is in Europe. I think in the guarantees of security that are also being sought today and in the future, Europe must be part of them.” Pope Leo — a Chicago native who was inaugurated in May as the first pontiff from North America — has hit out at Trump before, condemning Washington’s treatment of migrants as “inhuman” and urging him not to invade Venezuela.  Trump also tangled with Pope Leo’s predecessor, Pope Francis, who slammed the U.S.-Mexico border wall as “not Christian” and, months before his death, called Trump’s mass deportation plans a “disgrace.” Trump in turn branded him a “very political person.” Despite the current pontiff’s criticism, Trump signaled openness to talking or meeting with Leo in remarks to POLITICO.  “Sure, I will. Why not?” he said.   

Liz Truss looks out of place. In her neat pink jacket and white blouse, the former U.K. prime minister, who served a brief but eventful 49 days in the role back in 2022, strikes a contrast to the hoopla around her in the packed ballroom. Truss has come to Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia this October evening for the yearly “CEO summit,” drawing corporate figures, conservative influencers and donors for a night of fiery speeches about the triumphs of the MAGA movement — seasoned with the university’s Christian conservative tradition of mixing politics with prayer. Truss rises somberly as the crowd is enjoined to repent, soul-search and double down on tithe payments to the Baptist mega-church originally founded by the late televangelist Jerry Falwell. From the stage at the front of the room, she nods along to the heady mixture of God and politics, waiting to start a talk about the so-called “deep state” — which, she claims, includes the Bank of England and the U.K. Treasury. She announces that she is “on a mission” to transform the U.K., and when someone cries a noisy “amen,” that throws her for a moment before she resumes. If the juxtaposition between the ex-prime minister and fire-and-brimstone MAGA evangelicals seems unlikely — Truss later tells me she is still a stalwart of the Church of England, which is much more establishment than evangelical, even if she thinks it has gone a bit “woke” on social issues like trans rights — her presence here nonetheless represents an increasingly popular trend. A transatlantic “Magafication” movement is luring traditional conservatives from the U.K. to identify with the provocative style of U.S. President Donald Trump — and to try their hands at imitating him on his home turf, participating in rousing conservative speaking events across the U.S. For some, like Truss, these events are a lucrative, mood-enhancing chance to establish a new identity after the stinging defeat of the Tory party at the last general election in July 2024. For her more charismatic predecessor Boris Johnson, they are a chance to hear the roar of the crowd that more sedate speaking gigs with hedge funds and law firms can’t deliver. For Nigel Farage, from the ultraconservative Reform UK party, they are a chance to re-forge British politics in the image of Trump — a benediction and a bro-mance all in one. Whether it’s connecting with voters on either side of the Atlantic, however, is a less certain proposition. Most of the students going about their early evening outside the hall don’t seem to know who Truss is. “They kind of told us she was the leader in the U.K.,” muses one business studies major, “but I never heard of her.” Just a few weeks earlier, it was Johnson — the premier who rose on the wings of Brexit and preceded Truss in a carousel of Tory leaders after the Leave vote — who spoke on campus at the new-term convocation, following a sequence of Christian rock numbers.  “We’re in a congregation, folks, convocation — I mean, we’ve been convoked,” Johnson riffed. The ruffle-haired charm and Old Etonian levity were a preamble to a speech about the Christian university as a “bastion of freedom” and a paean to the memory of Charlie Kirk, the murdered conservative activist, whom Johnson hailed as “a martyr to our inalienable right as human beings to say what is in our hearts.” Later, he zoned in on the need to keep supporting Ukraine and lambasted the authoritarianism of Russian President Vladimir Putin — to a muted response from the audience. It’s not exactly a popular take here; there are no follow-up questions on the topic. And at the CEO event, none of the speakers mention Ukraine or the U.S. role in its future at all. Much like the isolationism Johnson encountered, the British MAGA trail is a sign of the times. Trump’s twofold electoral success is attractive to some U.K. conservatives who feel there must be something in the president’s iconoclasm they can bottle and take home. And unlike tight-lipped debate forums in the U.K., such events give them a chance to be noisy and outspoken, to paint arguments in bold and provocative colors. In other words, to be Brits on tour — but also more like Trump. And, for added appeal, these tours are a lucrative field for former inhabitants of 10 Downing Street. One person who has previously worked at the Washington Speakers Bureau, one of the main hubs for booking A-list speakers, said that the fee for a former premier is around $200,000 for a substantial speech, plus private plane travel and commercial flights for a support team. That is a level of luxury unparalleled at home. Well known figures like Johnson and David (Lord) Cameron, the British premier from 2010 to 2016, can aim even higher if travel is complicated. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Having “former prime minister” in front of your name in writing may open a lot of doors, but these politicians nonetheless have to tailor their resumes to appeal to American audiences.” Political CVs are duly bowdlerized to appeal to the target market of U.S. institutions and interests. Johnson’s profile at the Harry Walker agency in Washington, for instance, stresses his interest in deregulation and claims that he “successfully delivered Brexit — taking back control of U.K. law, marking the biggest constitutional change for half a century and enabling the United Kingdom to generate the fastest vaccine approval in the world.” This sequence of events and superlatives is debatable at best. Failures are routinely airbrushed out — Johnson’s premiership crashed in a mess of mismanagement during the pandemic and party divisions unleashed by the Brexit vote and his controversial handling of the aftermath, including the temporary dissolution of parliament to push through his legislation. But for characters whose legacy at home is either polarizing (like Johnson) or more likely to elicit a sly British eye roll outside a small fan base (Truss), there is also a degree of absolution on the American performance circuit that feels refreshing, in the same way that U.K. Indie bands stubbornly try to conquer America. Neither of the former Conservative leaders however, have as much to gain or lose by speaking at Trump-adjacent events as Farage, the leader of Britain’s Reform party — an “anti-woke,” Euro-skeptic, immigration-hostile party that is leading in the polls and attempting to expand its handful of lawmakers in the House of Commons into a party in contention for the next government. Farage has the closest access to Trump — a status previously enjoyed by Johnson, who last met Trump at the Republican National Convention in 2024 to discuss Ukraine. Proximity to Trump is the ultimate blessing, but it’s far harder to secure out of office than in it. Johnson endorsed Trump’s comeback at CPAC in February 2024 and wrote a column in support of Trump’s attack on the BBC for splicing footage of the January 6 uprising, which was deemed to be misleading and led to the abrupt departure of the broadcaster’s director general. Johnson was at Trump’s inauguration along with Truss (no other former U.K. politician was asked), but the invitations appear to have dropped off since chummy relations in Trump world can be ephemeral. Farage, by contrast, is a frequent visitor at both Mar-a-Lago and the White House. On November 7, he joined Trump at a fundraising auction for military veterans and has arranged to donate the prize of a walk with a centenarian veteran on Omaha beach, commemorating the D-Day landing site for U.S. forces. “I see him often,” he told me of his visits to Trump. Farage’s relationship with Trump could prove advantageous to him if he and his party claim greater power at home. He’d have the ear of the president, perhaps even the ability to sway Trump into a more sympathetic stance toward the U.K., even as the Americans embrace a more isolationist foreign policy. For now, Farage is certainly the most in-demand Brit on the MAGA circuit. He was the main speaker at the $500-a-head Republican party dinner in Tallahassee, Florida in March. Guests paid around $25,000 for a VIP ticket, which included having a photograph taken with the Reform UK leader. For the leader of a party that has a skimpy presence in parliament and faces the challenge of keeping its surge momentum and newsworthiness intact on a long road to the next election, being in the Trump limelight is a vote of confidence and a sign that he is taken seriously across the pond. The quid pro quo is performative loyalty — Farage, by turns genial and threatening in his manner, has echoed the president’s rancorous tone toward public broadcasters and media critics of MAGA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All of this transatlantic networking has threatened to ensnare the British visiting troupe in ethical quagmires about how their lucrative American freelancing relates to duties and strictures at home. Farage has attracted envious attention among his peers in parliament for earning around $1.5 million a year in addition to his MP salary, but he was forced to apologize recently for failing to declare the March dinner appearance and any fees associated with it in the official registry. So far, he’s revealed only that the trip was “remunerated in three separate installments over the course of two months,” without naming the funder.  Even Farage’s friendship with Trump — the envy of his compatriots on the MAGA trail — could present vulnerabilities among the U.K. electorate. Farage’s base of Reform voters largely supports Trumpian stances on immigration and diversity, and they love Trump’s personality. But beyond core Reform voters, the president does not enjoy broad support in the U.K. Recent polling shows only 16 percent of British people like the president. That’s a challenge for the Reform UK leader, whose party polls at just under 30 percent support in the U.K.; he needs to reach Trump-skeptical voters beyond his base in order to claim power. On top of those liabilities, avid Christian nationalism of the kind Truss encountered at the Liberty event presents a cultural problem for British politicians. Mixing ideology with religious fervor is awkward back home where church-going is largely regarded as a private matter, even if there are signs of more evangelical commitment among influential Christian Conservatives like Paul Marshall, a hedge-funder who recently acquired The Spectator, the house publication of well-heeled Tories, expanding its digital reach into America. Hardline evangelical stances could undermine support for campaigners like Farage, says Tim Bale, an expert on elections and political trends at Queen Mary College, University of London. Farage “probably needs to be careful of getting into things like anti-abortion arguments or even term limits on abortion. That does not play in the U.K.,” he told me. Duly, on their U.S. pilgrimages, both Truss and Johnson side-step direct engagement with the religiosity of their hosts. Johnson, who once joked that his own Anglican faith “comes and goes like Classic FM in the Chiltern hills,” basks in his reputation as a cheerful libertine with an array of past wives and mistresses. He fathered one child by an affair, and a scandal arising from allegations that he paid for an abortion during another affair got him sacked from his party’s front bench in 2004. (Johnson married his current wife, with whom he has four children, in 2021.) Religion isn’t the only subject that makes British MAGA-philes modulate their tone toward Trump. Johnson spoke of Trump’s “boisterous and irreverent” treatment of journalists, but dismissed it as minor compared to the attacks on the fourth estate in Moscow. Despite her previous support for Ukraine as Johnson’s foreign secretary, Truss awkwardly ducked questions on the Westminster Insider interview podcast when I pressed her about whether the administration should send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, which Trump opposes. “I’d have to know about the facts on the ground,” she said. But Farage, Johnson and Truss are betting that the benefits of being a transatlantic Trump acolyte well outweigh the risks. And there might be more to it than personal vanity tours and cushy earnings. The sense of grievances unheard or unaddressed that first elevated Trump to power have echoes across the Atlantic: worries about national decline, a feeling that traditional parties have lost touch with voters and a capacity for making Barnum-style entertainment out of the business of politics. It is a long way from being interrupted by the Speaker of the House of Commons shouting, “Order, order!”- Whether it is a flattering transatlantic afterlife for fallen leaders or a precursor to pitch for power at Westminster for Farage (who tells me that, like Trump, he is “building an unstoppable movement”) the MAGA circuit is the place to be — even if it’s not where everybody knows your name. It is also about embodying something these political pilgrims reckon their rivals fail to grasp: namely, the way one man’s MAGA movement has redefined Conservatism and opened up space for imitators in Europe to identify with more than their own election flops — and for newcomers to seek to remake their own political landscape. After all, if it happened to America, it might turn out to be a bankable export.

WASHINGTON — Former Conservative Prime Minister Liz Truss thinks the Green Party might end up becoming the official opposition after the next election. In an interview with POLITICO’s Anne McElvoy for the Westminster Insider podcast, Truss said “I think there’s a certain kind of honesty about the Green Party that you don’t see in the Labour Party,” adding that people are sick of “technocratic managerial crap” in politics. The former prime minister also insisted she will not be joining Reform UK in the foreseeable future, despite criticizing her own party’s record in office. She poured scorn on both Conservative chief Kemi Badenoch’s leadership of her old party and on Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves. Asked what she made of Reeves’ claim that Truss’ controversial mini-budget in September 2022 had contributed to Britain’s flailing economy today, making tax increases in her budget next month inevitable, Truss shot back: “I think she is a disingenuous liar. I have no time for Rachel Reeves. I don’t think she’s telling the truth about what is wrong with the British economy. I think she’s desperate … the public are now cottoning on to the fact that our country is in serious trouble.”  She also accused the Labour chancellor of having “bought the narrative of the Bank of England [about the dangers of the Truss mini-budget], which was a false narrative. Now she is being hung on her own petard.” The government has returned to the Conservatives’ economic record in preparation for a likely tax-raising budget next month, claiming this week that “things like austerity, the cuts to capital spending and Brexit have had a bigger impact on our economy than was even projected back then.”  Truss took issue with this assertion. “It is ludicrous to blame Brexit for a 30-year problem,” she said. “These arguments, like the mini-budget or Brexit or austerity, they’re just distractions from what the real problems are.” Speaking to POLITICO, Badenoch’s leadership of the Conservative Party also came in for a lengthy pasting from one of her recent predecessors. “I don’t believe the Conservative Party has come to terms with why we were kicked out after fourteen years,” Truss insisted. “What I was trying to do was shift the Conservative Party into the nationalist space. And what I faced was huge resistance from the Conservative blob who actually want to kowtow to the woke agenda. They want to be part of the transgender ideology, green climate change stuff.” Badenoch, she believes, still needs to choose more decisively “between representing places like Rotherham and Norfolk on the one hand and places like Surrey and Henley-on-Thames on the other. They haven’t chosen, and that’s a fundamental issue. And what Nigel Farage has done is he has moved into that space. That’s an existential threat for the Conservative Party.” But she had an optimistic assessment of the outlook for the Greens, reenergized under Zack Polanski’s leadership. “People don’t want this kind of technocratic managerial crap anymore. [Polanski] might end up leader of the opposition at this rate,” she said. “I think there’s a certain kind of honesty about the Green Party that you don’t see in the Labour Party … because there’s nothing for people to believe in.” Truss was speaking during a trip to Washington, D.C. and Virginia, where she met with leading figures from the conservative MAGA movement. In an extensive interview, Truss hinted, however, that her position could change when it comes to staying above the party fray. Asked how she saw Reform, she retorted: “I’m not offering my services,” even if there is a chance of bumping into its leader, Farage, who enjoys close links with U.S. President Donald Trump’s White House. However, she didn’t shut the door on some alignment with Reform: “I’m doing what I’m doing on an independent basis for now … reaching out to people, to network and to understand the lie of the land. I’m not going to say … my definite plans for the future.”  Truss resigned three years ago after just 49 days — the shortest period in office of any British prime minister. After losing her seat in last year’s general election, she has made regular visits to the U.S., attending right-wing conferences and conventions where she has praised Trump. Last week she joined a roster of Christian conservatives who support the MAGA movement. She spoke at a business summit at Liberty University in Virginia, founded by the late televangelist and conservative activist Jerry Falwell, alongside Gen. Mike Flynn, the former national security adviser to Trump, whose stump speeches described a Manichean fight between good and evil and Trump as the nation’s savior. Reflecting on the event afterward, Truss told McElvoy: “There’s a huge amount we can learn from [Trump] and what is happening in America and the MAGA revolution in the U.K. and Europe.”  Asked if she identified with the more fundamentalist view of religion and politics of the evangelical pro-Trump activists, she described her work “mission” to remake the U.K. and said:  “I think the [Church of England] needs to be restored to its former glory … it needs serious change.” Even Badenoch, who has fought “woke”  institutions and now wants to abandon the Climate Change Act, remains in hock to “modernizers” who Truss believes still control the party. But she had a positive word for Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick’s recent plan to restore the lord chancellor’s direct role in appointing judges. “I did agree with his policy on that — he’s right about it.” Liz Truss said she is “not offering services” to Reform UK, even if there’s a chance of bumping into its leader, Nigel Farage, who enjoys close links with U.S. President Donald Trump’s White House. | Neil Hall/EPA Truss remains defiant about the circumstances of her resignation as prime minister. She admitted to having been “upset to be deposed,” but was dismissive of her detractors and the jokes about her premiership being outlasted by a supermarket lettuce. “The people who joke about it or take the mick … I mean if I had been just a truly kind of mediocre, incompetent prime minister, I wouldn’t have been deposed. We’ve had plenty of those. I was deposed because people didn’t like my agenda and they wanted to get rid of me. “We’ve had years and years of pantomime personality politics, like Angela Rayner’s tax bill. And it doesn’t actually change the fact that the country is going down the tubes. And until the public and journalists understand where power and the British system actually lies and start to challenge it, start to question it … nothing will change.”

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: Grooming gangs. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch went toe-to-toe over whether the investigation into widespread child abuse was fit for purpose — or falling apart before it even started. Word of context: The government confirmed a national inquiry into child sexual exploitation would take place in June. Since then, four abuse survivors quit the inquiry’s victims and survivors liaison panel over their treatment. Former senior social worker Annie Hudson also withdrew from a shortlist of potential inquiry chairs. No confidence: Badenoch said the four victims had “lost all confidence” and were “dismissed and contradicted” by ministers. “What’s the point in speaking up if we’re just going to be called liars,” the Tory leader asked on behalf of one victim. Starmer condemned it as one of the “worst scandals of our time” and said the door “will always be open” if they wanted to return. Bookmark this: The PM insisted the inquiry will “never be watered down, its scope will not change, and it will examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders.” Starmer confirmed crossbench peer and government troubleshooter Louise Casey (mooted as a future cabinet secretary), who wrote the initial grooming gangs audit, would support the inquiry. War of words: The Tory leader asked why victims would return when “the government has engaged in a briefing war against survivors.” That strong accusation drew cries of “shame” from Labour backbenchers before Badenoch referenced another survivor, accusing Labour of creating a “toxic environment.” Pushing on: Starmer conceded there were still “hard yards” to be done to put survivors at the heart of the inquiry, given their “difficult experiences” and “wide range of views.” Nonetheless, the PM insisted, “I want to press on and get this right.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, Badenoch mentioned Starmer’s previous opposition to a national inquiry. “The victims don’t believe them,” she declared. “They don’t like it, but it’s true.” Of course: This sensitive and horrifying chapter in Britain’s history descended into a political knockabout. The PM mentioned work on reopening historic sexual abuse and mandatory reporting, which “fell on deaf ears” from the Tories. He should know: Starmer, often pejoratively labeled a lawyer by Badenoch, was asked why the inquiry wasn’t judge-led, given victims would prefer this, rather than a police officer or social worker chairing proceedings. The PM said judge-led inquiries were “often held back until the end of the criminal investigation,” which he wanted to run alongside the inquiry. Ministerial matters: But Badenoch suggested the chair was not the only problem. Quoting one victim, who accused Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips of lying (which Speaker Linsday Hoyle frowned upon), the Tory leader asked if the PM still had confidence in her. Starmer answered in the affirmative, saying she “has probably more experience than any other person in this House in dealing with violence against women and girls.” The Tories, you won’t be surprised to learn, want Phillips gone. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Roz Savage, the, er, Lib Dem MP for South Cotswolds, initially made PMQs a bit easier for Starmer after the Political Pics X account snapped her question in a transparent folder heading into No 10 … on Tuesday. “There was a very, very serious breach of national security,” she joked. Keeping Starmer on his toes, Savage instead asked about digital ID and, aptly, the risk of data breaches. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 7/10. Badenoch 6/10. Choosing a winner and a loser seems trivial given the main topic this week. Badenoch understandably used the victims’ departure to ask if the inquiry could fulfill its purpose. But the Tory leader’s political points lost the room, with the PM — just about — retaining authority with promises about the inquiry’s scope and remit. The survivors, on and off the panel, will hope those words translate into action.

Enough with the clickbait, Pope Leo told news organizations Thursday, urging journalists to fight against “junk” information and help people to distinguish between fact and fiction. “Communication must be freed from the misguided thinking that corrupts it, from unfair competition and from the degrading practice of so-called clickbait,” the pope said. “I urge you: never sell out your authority.” The pope was speaking at a conference in Rome, held by Minds International, a network of global news agencies. The conference, which runs until Friday, largely focuses on artificial intelligence and the role of news agencies in what it bills as a post-truth world. Pope Leo’s speech also addressed the topic of artificial information and disinformation. “It is a paradox that in the age of communication, news and media agencies are undergoing a period of crisis. Similarly, those who consume information are also in crisis, often mistaking the false for the true and the authentic for the artificial,” he said. Pope Leo praised the work of journalists who are risking their lives by reporting on the ground from war zones in Gaza and Ukraine, and urged them to act as a bulwark against disinformation. “You can act as a barrier against those who, through the ancient art of lying, seek to create divisions in order to rule by dividing. You can also be a bulwark of civility against the quicksand of approximation and post-truth,” he added.